Sweet.js: Hygienic Macros for JavaScript(github.com) |
Sweet.js: Hygienic Macros for JavaScript(github.com) |
First off, an example where it works:
a
/5/
7
a / 5 / 7;
However, let's take a more difficult case:
a = function() {}
/5/
7
The reason is that sjs translated the code to:
a = function () {
};
/5/;
7;
(I work on the JavaScript parser for a compile-to-JS language used by people doing jailbroken-iOS development for live introspection of running processes, and thereby that was the first thing I was interested in: how well the parser worked. ;P I have intentions to add reader macros, and then replace all of the extra Objective-C syntax I added with them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. FWIW: I actually found and fixed a bug in my parser while writing this comment. ;P)
It actually does the right thing if the function is named:
a = function foo() {}
/5/
7
a = function foo() {
} / 42 / 7;
To start with some example code:
for (var a = 7 in /7/ in 9 in b);
TypeError: Cannot use 'in' operator to search for '/7/' in 9
var a = 7; for (a in ((/7/ in 9) in b));
for (var a = 7 in (/7/ in (9 in b)));
ReferenceError: b is not defined
I'm totally willing to believe it, but based on my understanding (which sadly is somewhat limited for Scheme, but fairly in-depth for Clojure) it isn't intuitive to me: it would seem like the way you escape hygiene in Clojure (which by default achieves correct hygiene by attaching namespaces to symbols read for macros or inside of quasi-quote) is quite similar in semantics--but simpler in practice due to being exceedingly less verbose--than using syntax->datum and datum->syntax.
'Wish the function keyword in JavaScript wasn't so long? What if you could define functions with def instead?'
Erh, no? Why in the lord's name would I ? Is that your big selling point? 'I don't like function() because it's too long?'
'Want a better way to make "classy" objects?'
<provides example that looks like php vomited on Javascript after mating with ruby>
Why would you want to make javascript less like javascript, introduce a dependency to javascript that can read your language, and then compiles back into javascript in realtime, in a way that will obviously make debugging nearly impossible (like coffeescript)?
Am I the only one that doesnt understand the use case of this? Or should this have been presented as just another lexer/parser?
Hygiene is (roughly speaking) about getting scope right by default but has never been about forcing it on the programmer. Moreover, there are two components to it, only one of which is easy to achieve in an unhygienic system. It's easy to ensure your macro renames introduced /bindings/ by using gensym. But if your macro introduces /references/ to existing variables, it's very hard to protect against those references getting captured at the site where clients call your macro.
I believe in Clojure they get around this for some cases by letting you fully qualify a reference to a library binding, for example. But what if your macro wants to refer to a variable that's local to it? Such as an unexported library function, or simply a local variable. Again, I don't know if Clojure has an answer to this.
One concrete example: write a `define-inline` macro-defining-macro. At the call site, a user might write
(define some-local-variable /* something */)
(define-inline (foo x)
(+ x some-local-variable))
(define some-local-variable "something else")
(foo 42)
I do agree that the state of the art in hygienic macros is too complex. I just haven't seen another system that makes this kind of thing work. But I would like to experiment with Clojure's macros more to see if they have an answer.
Dave
The description page (like the rest of the project at them moment) is definitely a work in process. Sorry about the confusion!
> 'Wish the function keyword in JavaScript wasn't so long? What if you could define functions with def instead?'
> Erh, no? Why in the lord's name would I ? Is that your big selling point? 'I don't like function() because it's too long?'
This is just a really basic example of what you can do. Obviously you could have the same effect with sed but we need something simple to shows what basic macro definitions look like.
> 'Want a better way to make "classy" objects?'
> <provides example that looks like php vomited on Javascript after mating with ruby>
I'm assuming you refer to the macro definition with $ and whatnot. If you have ideas for better syntax please contribute! The notation is by no means final. That said I think it's pretty good for what it needs to do, matching syntax patterns and transforming them into new bits of syntax. Certainly more readable than a full parser/compiler.
> Am I the only one that doesnt understand the use case of this? Or is it just another lexer/parser?
The idea is to provide a middle way between no syntax extensions and writing your own full compile-to-js language languages like CoffeeScript which allow you to add any kind of syntax you want, but at the expense of being able to compose extensions. If you like the class notation of CS you must buy into all the syntax choices of CS whereas macros allow you to add just the syntax you want.
Whether you want new syntax is of course a different question. Other languages like scheme and closjure have found macros useful so sweet.js is an experiment to find out if the same syntactic extensibility that they provide is useful in JavaScript.
Hope that helps!
How about a more clear description like above on your page with some readups into macro's, and some more complicated examples that tell me as a programmer: "Yes, I dó need macro's!" and I can use them for these and these cases?
Also, don't underestimate how smart your audience is going to be by giving them just 3-line examples. I always find it more clear when there's some actual use cases on the wiki pages. How about a proper class, or a todoMVC style demo, so that people can actually imagine what kind of possibilities this would unlock?
Regardless, if you don't like macros (and your arguments are common among people who don't; that said, they are also common arguments against using higher-level languages or even functions), then you won't like this project or any other project attempting to provide similar functionality. ;P
Again, not a Clojure expert, but a namespace is coarser-grained than individual local scopes, right? The problem I'm talking about is when you have a local variable inside a nested scope (e.g. inside a `let`). If this is not named by a namespace, then you would still get collisions.
Regardless, Clojure's approach seems to be much closer in spirit to a hygienic macro system: it attempts to get scoping correct by default, and allows you to intentionally capture.
> You should spend more time looking into it before claiming to people that it doesn't work correctly; you could easily have just said "that's a good question, we'll look into that after the talk" rather than telling the person that Clojure wasn't as good.
Fair enough as far as it goes. I did react snappily, but you didn't hear the offline conversation (this whole thing was a dialog at my office with a friend and colleague, incidentally) where I said "I'm not entirely sure, but I believe there are things you just can't express with systems like Clojure's." And we concluded, just as you reprimanded me to do, that we should look into it further when we have time.
Dave
> Again, not a Clojure expert, but a namespace is coarser-grained than individual local scopes, right? The problem I'm talking about is when you have a local variable inside a nested scope (e.g. inside a `let`). If this is not named by a namespace, then you would still get collisions.
Ok, so are you are concerned with the case where the person defining the macro uses a symbol from the namespace of the person using the macro but that symbol has been rebound by the user inside of a let surrounding the aforementioned usage of the macro?
If so, that requires a cyclic module dependency, which isn't allowed (as the namespace from which you are getting the symbol would need to be required, but it would have to require back to get access to the macro: it does eager name binding, so that can't happen).
If not, and you are just talking about the simpler and more obvious case of a let shadowing a binding inside of a larger scope used by a macro, that works fine. The following code prints "1100", despite the macro expanding to multiple uses of the same symbol "t".
(def t 1000)
(defmacro run [x]
`(+ ~x t))
(let [t 100]
(prn (run t)))
(def t 1000)
(defmacro run [x]
`(+ ~x t ~'t))
(let [t 100]
(prn (run t)))> If so, that requires a cyclic module dependency...
Not necessarily. For example (forgive the Scheme syntax), all in one module:
(define thing "outer thing")
;; define-inline is the above macro-defining-macro
(define-inline (foo prefix)
(string-append prefix thing))
(let ((thing "inner thing"))
(foo "should say outer thing: ")) (def thing "outer thing")
(defmacro foo [prefix]
`(str ~prefix thing))
(let [thing "inner thing"]
(prn (foo "should say outer thing: ")))
(edit:) Alternatively, maybe you are focussing on the define-inline "macro-defining macro"; you mentioned it here again as "the above", and you had used it above, but as it wasn't defined it didn't seem important. I tried to go ahead and implement it, although to be honest I feel like I did it wrong (spending more time thinking about it, I believe it is correct, modulo your definition of "inline"); that said, it "worked".
(defmacro def-inline [[name & args] code]
`(defmacro ~name ~(apply vector args)
~code))
(def thing "outer thing")
(def-inline [foo prefix]
(str prefix thing))
(let [thing "inner thing"]
(prn (foo "should say outer thing: ")))
(let [thing "outer thing"]
(defmacro foo [prefix]
`(str ~prefix thing))
(let [thing "inner thing"]
(prn (foo "should say outer thing: "))))
However, I can use the def-inline that I wrote in the edit to my earlier reply to demonstrate that if you reorganized this code in a way that was semantically equivalent but hoisted the macro, it would work the way you think it should: the definition of the thing from the let surrounding the macro-ish definition is used, not the one from the call site (or the global one in the namespace).
(defmacro def-inline [[name & args] code]
`(defmacro ~name ~(apply vector args)
~code))
(def thing "outer thing")
(let [thing "middle thing"]
(def-inline [foo prefix]
(str prefix thing)))
(let [thing "inner thing"]
(prn (foo "should say middle thing: ")))
(edit:) Oh, that wasn't semantically equivalent, as the second let is not inside of the first. However, if I do that, I get the same behavior as I get in the other case (that it doesn't actually expand the macro at all and treats the form as a function call), as I'm obviously just defining the macro again inside of the same already-read form in which I'm using it.
(further:) Okay, and the reason why that is working is that the way I wrote def-inline inlined the code from def-inline into the macro itself. That is probably not what you wanted from def-inline: this is more like def-const (or def-static or something). I thereby tried doing this instead:
(let [thing "middle thing"]
(defmacro foo [prefix]
`(str ~prefix thing)))
(let [thing "inner thing"]
(prn (foo "should say middle thing: ")))
For the record, I think that is unrelated to what I normally think of with relation to hygiene: the macro is able to modify the code using it without accidental capture, but humorously it, itself, is unable to take advantage of symbols that have been bound locally around it. I totally accept that this is probably a flaw (I only say "probably" as I'm willing to believe someone from Clojure can convince me otherwise; it certainly seems like a flaw, though).
(more:) I am increasing the weight of that "probably", as I'm noting that the person calling this code has absolutely no way to refer to the thing that I have access to: there is no path no matter how complex or awesome that would let it refer to my "middle thing". I can inline it with ~, but then it isn't a binding anymore; however, that's actually equivalent, as Clojure does not have setf: "thing" is a constant, and so even if I had a function inside of this let closed over that thing, I couldn't modify its value.
Anyway, my takeaways here are:
- I shouldn't've said anything about Clojure specifically, because a) the design space is different and b) they have some form of hygiene-like something-or-other that I don't know enough about. Gotta go study them!
- I still don't know how to do hygiene in Scheme-like languages any other way than the approaches I've seen, but I do agree they're more complicated than I wish they were.
Dave